Citizenship Teaching and Learning

Vol 2, No. 2, December 2006

The Making of Social Studies Education

In Korea: Implications for Citizenship
Education [1]
DAEHOON JHO, Sungshin Women’s University

ABSTRACT Based on historical and empirical analyses, this paper attempts to

explore in Korean middle schools the enacted meaning of social studies education
that has been acknowledged as a major vehicle of citizenship education among
Korean educators. A particular focus of the study is placed on the perceived
meanings and pedagogical consequences of subject matter education manifested in
the narratives of middle school social studies teachers. In sum, this study indicates
that social studies education is a social and cultural construct within the
idiosyncratic historical contexts of Korean schooling. The teacher narratives
analyzed in this study also suggest that contrasting views of subject matter
professionalism persist in local schools, with some detrimental effects on citizenship
education. In addition, it seems there is a disparity between teacher education
programmes and middle school curriculum requirements. The findings of this paper
should prompt social studies and international educators in Korea and abroad to
rethink the current practices of subject matter education as well as the appropriate
conditions conducive to achieving the aims of citizenship education.

Introduction
The imagery of Korean schooling is more than a Confucian drama. As such the
practice of social studies education aimed at promoting civic competence is not
clear. A brief glance at the history of South Korea (hereafter Korea) in the 20th
century would tell us that Korean schooling has resulted from the interplay of social
and historical conditions. These unique contexts have been powerful for shaping the
meaning of what is taught and learned. Acknowledging this claim, international and
comparative research on citizenship education needs to benefit from abundant
stories and potential commonalities emerging from the situated complexities of
schooling in various social contexts. While recent large-scale comparative studies in
relevant fields have enriched our understanding of problems and possibilities in
citizenship education (e.g., Cogan, Morris, and Print, 2002; Steiner-Khamsi, Torney-
Purta, and Schwille, 2002; Toney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001), there
still remains much to be debated regarding both the meanings and consequences of
citizenship education via social studies subject matter.
What role is social studies education actually playing to promote citizenship
education? And what kind of school context is the most conducive to the
professional growth of teachers? Guided by these questions, and analyzing historical

http://www.citized.info ©2006 citizED

22 JHO, D

and empirical data, this study attempted to interpret the enacted meaning of social
studies education particularly in Korean middle schools which have been
acknowledged as a major vehicle of citizenship education among Korean educators
(Cha, 1983, 1996; Cho, 1997; Kim, 1995; Kyoyukbu, 1992, 1998; Lee, 1992). First,
I conduct an historical analysis of the construction of social studies subject matter in
20th century Korea. Second, based on qualitative data drawn from selected middle
school social studies teachers, I interpret the pedagogical consequences of their work
situated in the institutional contexts of Korean middle schools.
In sum, this paper will draw attention to the argument that the reality of subject
matter education is being socially and culturally constructed within the historical and
institutional contexts of schooling in a particular society (Jenness, 1990; Kliebard,
1995; Lesko, 1988; McNeil, 1986; Page and Valli, 1990; Siskin, 1991, 1994;
Stodolsky, 1988; Thornton, 2005). I view the practice of Korean social studies
education as an educational phenomenon constructed in idiosyncratic socio-
historical contexts of schooling and the teaching profession. In addition, this paper
will illuminate the disparity between teacher education programmes and middle
school curricula, as well as contrasting views of teacher professionalism in Korea’s
middle schools, both of which can exert detrimental effects on citizenship education.
The present case study of Korean social studies teachers will shed light on the
significance of the voices of teachers, as well as the need to rethink the nature and
practice of social studies education.

Methodological Framework
To describe ‘what is meant by social studies education’ and ‘how that definition
is perceived and interpreted’ in local Korean schools, I employed both socio-
historical and empirical analyses. Using a socio-historical approach, I intend to
clarify for international readers the nature of Korean schooling and social studies
subject matter. Mainly focusing on the emergence of social studies subject matter in
20th century Korea, this study attempts to illustrate the complex interplay of multi-
faceted factors behind the very name of citizenship education. Hopefully, this
analysis will help both domestic and international audiences situate the meanings of
current educational practices within broader societal contexts.
In parallel with this socio-historical approach, I have conducted qualitative
analyses of data collected from semi-structured interviews with selected social
studies teachers who worked in various schools. Methodologically, as a post-
positivist investigator, I was trying to make sense of what is going on in the field,
highlighting the presence of local voices in the data, and paying attention to the
particular as well as the general patterns (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998; Denzin and
Lincoln, 1998; Eisner, 1998; LeCompte and Preissle, 1993). [2]
For teacher interviews, I focused on a small group of secondary social studies
teachers who volunteered for my on-going teacher research. [3] Those teachers were
working in various schools, but are similar in that they completed their social studies
majors at prestigious 4-year universities in Seoul and worked in public middle
schools located in the metropolitan area.

Korean Social Studies Education Revisited: Historical Perspective

In this section I begin with a socio-historical analysis of the development of
Korean schooling, and then take a closer look at the emergence of social studies
subject matter in 20th century Korea. The purpose of this section is to situate the

http://www.citized.info ©2006 citizED

The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 23

meanings of teacher narratives within the broader social and historical contexts of
Korean schooling.

Background: Strong State Control over Schooling [4]

The transition from traditional Confucian society (late 15th through 19th century)
to modern Korea was traumatic. As noted earlier, Korea in the first half of the 20th
century was severely agitated by a series of historical events. Among these, three
historical events have combined to provide a profound context for the development
of social studies subject matter, as well as the Korean educational system: Japanese
colonial governance (1910-1945), American military governance (1945-1948) and
authoritarian military dictatorship (1961-1993) (McGinn, Snodgrass, Kim, Kim, and
Kim, 1980; Yoo, 1992).
Education in traditional Chosŏn Korea was not only a major agency for
indoctrinating Confucian norms through the study of the Confucian classics, but also
a critical vehicle of upward social mobility (Deuchler, 1992). While tight state
control of those higher-educational institutions meant they were open only to males
from the ruling class, there existed widespread awareness of education as an
important factor in improving the socioeconomic status of an entire family. The
Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910, however, brought an abrupt close to this pre-
modern educational system, having a lasting effect on the Korean school system.
First, it is hard to reject the claim that Korea was bequeathed two contrasting
entities by the Japanese colonial governance: an enervated civil society and strong
state regulation, conditioned by colonial modernity. The Japanese colonial
government introduced a public school system as part of its attempt to run colonized
Korea efficiently. This resulted in a modern public school system based on fourteen
or fifteen years of education. This system was similar to its Japanese counterpart, but
different especially in that the programmes of higher education were narrowly
defined and access to them was severely limited for Koreans (Yoo, 1992). Under this
colonial education, indigenous forces to restore national sovereignty and ethnic
identity were deceitfully manipulated and eventually obliterated. The notion of the
strong state is another vestige of Japanese imperialism. Indeed extreme
centralization and a rigid regulative bureaucracy persist in the contemporary Korean
school system (McGinn et al., 1980; Chung and Armer, 1994).
With respect to the institutional culture of school organizations, Korean
secondary schools have until recently retained educational practices akin to those of
Japanese schools. Much of what Rohlen (1983) saw in his ethnographic study of five
Japanese high schools in the mid-1970s, seems notably similar to the institutional
life of Korea’s high schools, in terms of both the form of school practices and
structural arrangements of the school. For example, such school features as a
hierarchical relationship between senior and junior students, strict school uniform
and hair code, mass callisthenics, and daily and weekly school rituals in fact
appeared for the first time in Korea. All exhibit a strong resemblance to those of
Japanese secondary schools, whose main purpose was to inculcate attitudes of
submission to authority.
While the Japanese colonial era lingers on in the concepts of a strong state and
school rituals, the impact of the four-year American military governance has been
closely linked to the ideals of the progressive educational movement, these
constituting an indisputable goal of the Ministry of Education and the nature of
24 JHO, D

social studies education to date. With the end of Japanese imperialism, the United
States military government temporarily took over the southern half of the Korean
peninsula, which would later become South Korea. A series of educational plans
initiated by the U.S. military government were aimed at eradicating Japanese
colonial schooling so as to build the infrastructure of an autonomous system
dedicated to educating both the teaching force and good citizens.
As for the strong modern state, this legacy bestowed upon Korea by Japanese
colonialism has continued to play a vital role in the politics of the authoritarian
military regimes in the second half of 20th century Korea (Cumings, 1997; Eckert,
Lee, Lew, Robinson, and Wagner, 1990; Robinson, 1991). Bent as they were on
using indoctrination as a way of legitimizing their political ideology, the military
regimes emerged as powerful educational gatekeepers by establishing a uniform
channel to the social elite group and by exerting especially tight control over the
highly selective higher-educational institutions. The state government took the
initiative in shaping educational policies and practices, leaving little autonomy to the
local schools at all levels. Student credentialing, school curricula, opportunities for
higher education, student recruitment, teacher personnel management—all such
matters were administered largely by the central government.
In particular what has been known as pyŏngjunhwa--the policy of equalization of
student recruitment in the local middle schools--has been the most influential of all
school policies in local secondary schools. This extreme policy originally was
implemented so as to cut down on the severe competitiveness of the middle and high
school entrance examinations and on fraudulent and illegal college entries. Based on
this policy, students are assigned to the local public and private schools in their
residential areas by an automatic selection system, unless they apply for other
vocational or specialized high schools (e.g., schools specializing in science, foreign
languages, culinary arts, or animation). Meanwhile, this policy of equalization has
been also powerful enough to erase all significant differences among local schools in
virtually all aspects--school resources, teachers, curricula, and administrative
scheduling, and even the architectural styles of school buildings. The
implementation of this top-down policy has been hailed by some as evidence of
liberation of children from ‘examination hell’; others have criticized that such a
policy is based on that notion of forced equity, which deprives both students and
schools of their rights to choose. [5]
Since the early 1990s, however, Koreans have witnessed unprecedented
educational changes in a relatively short span of time. Seemingly, these tangible
changes stemmed from a series of educational policies (e.g., the 7th national
curriculum revision, school management committee, and legalization of a teacher
labour union) launched by the new civilian political leaderships in the post-military
governance era. Recent moves made by the Ministry of Education have represented
the mainstream policymakers’ awareness that the conventional modes of
authoritarian control and supervision over schooling no longer meet the changing
ethos of Korean society.
The nature of social studies education in Korea has been shaped by these
historical contexts. Below I will describe the emergence of social studies education
as one of the core school subjects based on this particular historical background.

The Emergence of Integrated Social Studies

As noted earlier, during the period of the American military governance (1945-
1948) the colonial school subjects were systematically overhauled by newly
The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 25

organized educational committees, jointly comprised of American military officials

and hand-picked Korean scholars. The main mission of these ad hoc committees was
to eradicate the militaristic, indoctrination-style school curricula and to disseminate
democratic ways of life through new school subjects, more compatible with the
political purposes of the United States (Cumings, 1997; Lee, 1992; Yoo, 1992).
School curricula in the post-liberation Korea were subject to explicit and implicit
ideological constraints, closely associated with a growing Cold War ideology. Once
the old ‘susin’ of the colonial school curriculum had been removed, the new school
subject ‘sahoe (or sahoe saenghwal),’ a Korean version of social studies, was born.
The Educational Law of 1954 legally endorsed sahoe, social studies, as one of the
official national school subjects (Lee, 1992). [6]
It is hard to deny that the nature of social studies subject matter at this embryonic
stage was heavily influenced by that of the United States. At the core of this foreign
impact was the very definition of social studies as the integrated study of the social
sciences and humanities. For the then-current American military officials, the
importing of subject matter concepts and frameworks from their homeland onto the
Korean canvas seemed a practical choice, considering their political ideology as well
as their sheer ignorance of Korean society and culture. Since then, there has been a
growing consensus among social studies educators that an integrative approach is the
right way to go. This American-style aim of integration across multiple disciplinary
areas—history, geography, and general social sciences—has been legitimated in the
post Korean War period by the mainstream curricular discourse in social studies.
Most importantly, this idea led to the troika of social studies education, the marked
division of the three big terrains and subsequent university departments—History
Education, Geography Education, and General Social Studies Education. [7] At any
rate, integration certainly has been the binding theme, rarely having been challenged
for several decades. [8]
Under this strong American influence of subject matter education, it is
particularly notable that, the concept of ‘citizenship education’ itself has become
integrated into the social studies subject matter. A brief look at the social studies
literature since the 1960s would confirm that the discourse of Korean social studies
has consistently identified the ultimate value of their professional area as being the
most essential channel of democratic citizenship education in local schools (Cha,
1983, 1996; Cho, 1997; Kim, 1995; Kyoyukbu, 1992, 1998; Lee, 1992). Similar to
what has been observed in the United States, the umbrella slogan of ‘promoting
desirable democratic citizenship’ resulted in differing understandings and
conceptions of what ‘civic competence’ or an ‘effective citizen’ actually means.
Among these conceptions, an overarching mainstream definition of the social
studies has been to help young students assume an office of a reflective citizen who
is able to make informed decisions about various social issues and make civic
actions in our diverse and interconnected world (Cha, 1996; Kyoyukbu, 1998; Lee,
1991). Having distanced itself from the mere teaching of various disciplinary
concepts and generalizations, the notion of social studies subject matter has been
frequently associated with the terms such as reflective inquiry, rational decision
making, higher-level thinking, or the teaching of controversial social issues. As part
of this social studies discourse in the second half of the 20th century, the nature of
democratic civic competence has highlighted the value of situating curricular
knowledge within students’ every day life experiences. Accordingly, good social
studies teachers need to provide students with opportunities to relate curricular
26 JHO, D

topics to their daily lives; they are responsible for encouraging every student to
become a reflective thinker who understands the explicit and implicit meanings of
social phenomena from various vantage points, who shares his or her idea with
others, and who actively participates in the political process.
Meanwhile, it should be pointed out that the definition of social studies subject
matter was influenced by some social and cultural modifications in the Korean
context. Although such American intervention was powerful, it did not completely
overhaul the existing culture of schooling. Since the 1960s, Korea’s social studies
education has been closely coupled with the legacy of a strong state, an ideology of
nationalism mixed by anti-communism, and the micro-politics seen among the
discipline-based social studies professionals.
The discourse of Korean social studies curriculum in the second half of the 20th
century was not free from ideological constraints, but severely distorted by
authoritarian dictatorships. The state government in Korea was in strong command
of social studies curriculum and textbooks at the national level until very recently.
Authoritarian military leaders capitalized on the national social studies curriculum
so as to legitimate their cold-war ideology and to prolong their political life.
The idea of integration itself provided another motive to make Korean social
studies education different from its American counterpart. The fact is that for the
past decades general consensus about the importance of integration has not led to
any tangible agreement as to what integration actually means and how it is possible
in the national curriculum. [9] This is also partly the case in the United States,
considering the name ‘social studies’ has been a political umbrella term covering
various discipline-based interest groups. In Korea, however, the idea of integration
has created vivid confrontations under the micro-politics of the three idiosyncratic
curricular subdivisions—History, Geography and General Social Studies (GSS
hereafter). In the revision of national social studies curricula, for instance, these
three subdivisions quickly have turned into fervent interest groups, whose common
goal is to win more class hours per week and to gain more unit space in national
curriculum for their own disciplinary contents, than the other rivals.
One of the results from this tedious political battle is that most of the content and
method courses in university teacher preparation programmes have been
departmentalized with only marginal collaborations among History, Geography and
GSS departments. Acknowledging this structural problem, the Ministry of Education
has modified the existing teacher preparation system since the late 1990s, by
creating a new-born area of social studies teacher certification, namely ‘Common
Social Studies’ (kongt’ong sahoe kyoyuk chŏn’gong) (Kyoyukbu, 2000). The
Ministry of Education has mandated local universities to launch a Common Social
Studies (CSS hereafter) programme as an inter-departmental one that will prepare
prospective social studies teachers for their non-major content areas. [10]
The above historical review reveals that Korea’s social studies education has
become closely coupled with the idea of citizenship education. Also my discussion
suggests that the notion of social studies education in Korea, while it has borrowed
heavily from the United States, has been socially and culturally shaped by its unique
historical contexts. The practice of social studies education should not be regarded as
a universal object, but as a social one constructed by the combination of various
contextual factors.
The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 27

Pedagogical Consequences of Social Studies Education: Analysing Teacher

Narratives
In this section, I illustrate some major findings from my qualitative analysis of
teacher interview data. My in-depth teacher interview was centred on the following
core questions:

 What do the middle school social studies teachers perceive the meaning of
teaching social studies to be?
 What interpretations do they give to social studies curriculum and teaching?
 What are the instructional demands and constraints they confront on a daily
basis?

I intend to focus on the commonalities across the interview data. In sum, two
pivotal themes emerged from the teacher narratives, and these themes were co-
constructed by the teachers and me throughout the research process. These themes
are: instructional constraints arising out of the teaching of non-major subject areas
and the ambiguous nature of social studies professionalism. In sum, the findings
presented in this section indicate something other than those teachers’ personal
vignettes. Rather the findings illuminate the impact of institutional contexts on their
social studies practices, this ultimately being detrimental to the achievement of the
proposed goals of citizenship education.

Instructional Constraints from the Teaching of Non-Major Disciplinary Areas

[Vignette 1]

In teaching Social Studies 3, I’ve tried to reconstruct the existing

textbook for my instructional purposes as much as possible. But, in
teaching Korean geography in Social Studies 1, which I did not study
properly, I tend to stick to the content structure of the textbook because
I still feel incompetent in the area of geography.

[Vignette 2]

(Even though I major General Social Studies in my university) I know I

have no choice but to teach ‘Korean History’ or geography units in
‘Social Studies 1’ sometime soon. Frankly, the school was originally
assigned to teach Korean History this year. But the fact is that … I am
a novice teacher, and I have never taught Korean History before. Even
though I have been certified as a common social studies teacher, you
well know, I took only two history courses on Western and Eastern
Civilizations and one on Korean history. (…) What is worse is I am in
charge of 7th grade homeroom. Tons of duties regarding student
management and administrative paperwork are coming up. For a
beginning teacher, it takes a lot of preparations just to grasp the unit
contents of a single textbook. So I begged the social studies department
head for this year that I would teach Social Studies 1 and 3.
28 JHO, D

Fortunately, other social studies teachers seemed to understand my

situation, but on condition that I will teach Korean History next year. I
must spend the coming winter break to catch up with all the Korean
history stuff.

Teacher narratives identified in my study suggest that social studies teachers

were subject to persistent constraints stemming from their non-major subject areas
under the current middle school social studies curricular framework. For instance
Ms. Cho, a GSS major and experienced teacher in her early 40s, confessed that she
felt nervous whenever teaching geography units in her Social Studies 1 classes.
Likewise, Mr. Lee, a GSS major who had 7 years of teaching experience felt
overburdened when thinking about the need to memorize and organize all the
geographical facts contained in World Geography units in the Social Studies 2
textbook. This kind of psychological anxiety was the most severe in the case of Ms.
Park, a novice teacher who just entered her third year of teaching. She confessed that
she became worried whenever she imagined her being questioned by some
mischievous students about historical facts in National History classes.
Social studies teachers in Korea’s middle schools are very often forced to teach
specific areas that they did not actually study in an appropriate manner in their pre-
service teacher education programmes. Any prospective social studies teacher
normally focuses on a single major or concentration out of the three departments—
GSS, History and Geography. My social studies teachers recalled that they had been
required in their university teacher education programmes to take at least 6 credits
(normally equal to 2 courses) in each of the other two non-major concentration areas
(History and Geography). And since the launching of CSS, the number of minimum
credits that CSS majors should take across the three concentration areas has slightly
increased. When prospective social studies teachers are placed in local middle
schools, they are expected to teach subjects across all three major areas. Because
middle school social studies curricula exhibit a multi-disciplinary structure, and
because most of the local middle schools cannot afford to balance out the number of
social studies teachers in the three disciplinary areas, it becomes almost inevitable
that they teach non-major disciplinary units.
However, it was a shared feeling evident in the teachers’ narratives that pre-
service teacher education programmes actually have not been appropriately
preparing prospective social studies teachers for the instructional situations they
would be immersed in after graduation. The teachers told me that the current policy
of CSS rarely changed the situation at all, believing that such minimum course
requirements had only a marginal effect on preparing them for teaching social
studies textbooks they would be confronting.
The teacher narratives indicate that their feelings of incompetence tended to
make them rely mostly on textbook-based instructional approaches toward their non-
major subject areas. When teaching their non-major subject areas, social studies
teachers tended to feel much less efficient in terms of organization of factual
knowledge, use of supplementary sources, or application of the teaching method
appropriate to given instructional contents. Although I did not systematically
observe these teachers’ lessons in which they were teaching their non-major content
areas, their narratives drawn from in-depth interviews convinced me that the
teaching of non-major content areas represents a considerable burden on these
teachers, and consequently has a detrimental effect on the quality of civic education.
In his ethnographic study of two Korean social studies teachers, Lee (1996) argued
that the teaching of non-major subject areas is likely to mirror deficiency in
The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 29

teachers’ capability of reconstructing subject matter content (Lee, 1996: 186-189).

Ms. Park’s above confession tells that the undesirable circumstance noted in Lee’s
study in the mid 1990s is being reproduced in local classrooms of the year 2006,
despite the policy to develop CSS.
Under this common instructional environment, another vivid finding was that the
teachers challenged the very idea of integrated social studies. They did not give full
credence to the long-standing mainstream belief that the quality of social studies
education would be more effectively promoted by teaching through integrated
contents, as opposed to separate disciplinary areas. For instance, Mr. Kim was one of
the teachers who most fervently asserted that current ‘half-baked’ curricular
integration might have a chance to eliminate some unique strengths of each
disciplinary area. In the eyes of these teachers, the idea of integrated social studies
curriculum was viewed as a conventional myth which makes people believe it is the
most effective way to achieve the aims of democratic citizenship education. Teacher
narratives exhibited a shared feeling that local practitioners had been innocently
swayed by this kind of political rhetoric employed by the policymakers and output-
oriented bureaucrats who have barely known how teachers actually teach in their
workplace and what they need. [11]
Needless to day, these conditions seem to create unfavourable educational
contexts for implementing the aims of citizenship education that is assumed to be an
aspect of social studies education. Above all, it was evident that those teachers felt
constrained in developing what Shulman (1987) called pedagogical content
knowledge. The ownership of pedagogical content knowledge differentiates
experienced teachers from novice ones. Pedagogical content knowledge goes
beyond scientific knowledge, whose production is the goal and responsibility of
scientists. To become a highly professional social studies teacher, then, one needs to
develop a type of practical and interpretive knowledge drawn from the combination
of content, method, and contextual information about learners and classroom
environments. Without being properly equipped with relevant pedagogical content
knowledge, the teachers who majored in GSS did not feel ‘professional’ enough
when teaching geography and history units. With such instructional conditions,
teachers tend to take a myopic view toward every day lessons, marginalizing the
supreme goal of encouraging individual students to become reflective thinkers who
are capable of connecting curricular knowledge with their real-life experiences. It is
fair to say that this undesirable outcome in the teaching of social studies is not
accidental, but contrived by the reality of the administration of social studies in
schools.

The Ambiguous Nature of Social Studies Professionalism

[Vignette 3]

Whether teachers work really hard on their teaching, or neglect their

instructional responsibilities, doesn’t really make any difference. In
either case there is no tangible consequence. I believe that a higher
professional position such as principal and district supervisor has
been reserved for those who are well versed in dealing with the
administrative tasks and making bureaucratic connections. I believe
this system generates a distorted image of a professional teacher as
30 JHO, D

someone who is obsessed with official teacher credentials, while

obviously lacking the core part; that is, enthusiasm for and
commitment to teaching.

Mr. Kim’s serious complaint nicely captures one of the widespread beliefs
among Korean teachers about the teacher reward system. The complaint signals
another compelling theme regarding social studies teachers’ educational practices
drawn from the teacher narratives: the ambiguous nature of social studies
professionalism. Put another way, social studies teachers admitted that their daily
curricular and instructional practices tended to be almost discrete professional
activities, lacking in any mutually shared pedagogical philosophy among their
colleagues.
Many descriptive studies of teachers’ work conducted in Korea and the United
States demonstrate that isolation or individualism epitomizes the professional ethos
of schoolteachers (Flinders, 1988, 1989; Jho, 2001; Lee, 1996; Little, 1990; Lortie,
1975). Such characterization certainly accounts for the subject matter sub-culture of
social studies teachers in most of Korea’s public middle schools. Indeed, teacher
collegiality was extremely rare in the sphere of classroom instruction. With the
exception of several cross-checking activities (e.g., making instructional handouts,
maintaining the same content coverage and instructional pace, and developing mid-
term or final exam questions), these teachers tended to work individually with only
marginal collaborations. What makes them work individually?
One of the notable answers to this question has been proposed by Flinders
(1989). In his study of high school English teachers in the United States, Flinders
maintained that teachers “not only accept their isolation, but actively strive to
maintain it” (Flinders, 1989:63), doing so largely in order to save time and energy.
Flinders’ argument implies that a phenomenon of teacher isolation is likely to be
most teachers’ strategic choice, so as to survive in their workplace. This might be
the case for Korean social studies teachers, considering their heavy workload that
universally mirrors the three basic responsibilities in Korea’s schools—classroom
instruction, administrative paperwork, and homeroom management.
Another persuasive answer to the question of teacher isolation was drawn from
the teacher interviews. It pinpointed the idiosyncratic feature of school
administration in most of Korean middle schools—the loose connection between the
administrative and the instructional. The teachers in this study were of the same
opinion that the school administration has organized its departments largely in order
to cope with the administrative tasks mandated by the municipal office and the
Ministry of Education. This administrative tendency hugely undercut any hope the
social studies teachers might cherish of building up a core of subject matter
professionalism, particularly in that it physically separates them from one another
and re-groups them by the administrative department. [12]
In this regard, one of the common wishes expressed by the teachers for their
professional development was, ironically enough, to have a particular working space
or office reserved only for the social studies staff. It is noteworthy that this clearly
contradicts the interpretation advanced by Flinders (1989). In my Korean study, the
teachers’ wishes happened to centre around the idea of working together in their own
space. In their view, this serves the very same purpose of saving time and energy.
It is obvious that the perceived disconnection between the administrative core
and the instructional core cannot be beneficial to the enactment of citizenship
education. The existing administrative structure of Korean middle schools appears to
The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 31

prevent teachers from developing mutually collaborative professional relationships.

One of the plausible consequences of such structural disconnection was that schools
tend to prioritize administrative efficiency over the pedagogical purposes of
individual subject matter education (McNeil, 1986; Meyer and Rowan, 1983;
Ingersoll, 1994). The organization of school departments regulated by the Ministry
of Education runs against not only the purpose of promoting civic competence but
also that of teachers’ subject matter professionalism. What the school administration
actually does is to make teachers responsive to the external policy mandates.
This detrimental situation with regard to teacher professionalism seems to be
exacerbated by the teachers’ pervasive distrust of the existing teacher evaluation
system. The social studies teachers think that the existing teacher evaluation system
by no means provides a meaningful context for the promotion of subject matter
professionalism. As seen in the following narrative, they were convinced that those
who are excellent in classroom instruction are not likely to get appropriate career
rewards from the current teacher evaluation system.

[Vignette 4]

I’ve never trusted teacher evaluation by the administrators. I’m not

talking about the specific case of my school, but about overall teacher
evaluation in our schools. Whatever they say, I believe the most
important job for teachers is to teach our students. There can be
nothing else! But, the things the school administration takes into
account for teacher evaluation have nothing to do with classroom
practices. That new teacher credit system, I think, gives us a good
example of the reality. This new system concerns only with how often
individual teachers attend teacher education programmes and
workshops. Of course, some teacher education courses and workshops
are helpful for our classroom instruction. But the fact is … those
teachers in the in-service programmes are probably sitting there just
to get their credits necessary for being promoted to the position of
school administrator or district supervisor. I have no doubt about the
fact that those who really dedicate themselves to teaching their kids
are going to have the least chance of becoming a head teacher, a
district supervisor, or a principal.

Teachers’ perceptions and interpretations have a clear message for what passes
as teacher professionalism: if individual teachers wish to obtain the officially
endorsed status of ‘professional’, they should spend less time and energy in
preparing classroom instruction and homeroom management, and more in boosting
their official career points. In this teacher perspective, both the head teacher system
(susŏk kyosaje) and the merit pay system (sŏngkwagŭpje), recently promulgated by
the Ministry of Education as a way of providing local practitioners substantial career
incentives, would only bolster teachers’ distrust of the idea of teacher evaluation
itself. In the absence of any fundamental change with respect to what it means to be
a professional teacher, these contrived incentives will merely lead to the mass
production of official credentials, marginalizing the value of ‘practical wisdom’
embodied in excellent teachers’ daily classroom practices.
32 JHO, D

Discussion
In this study I have explored the meaning of social studies education in the
context of Korea, based on historical and qualitative analyses. A particular focus of
the study was placed on the perceived meanings and pedagogical consequences of
subject matter education manifested in the narratives of middle school social studies
teachers. In sum, this study illustrates that the nature of social studies education is a
social construct in the idiosyncratic historical contexts of Korean schooling. The
teacher narratives analyzed in this study also suggest that the existing disparity
between teacher education programmes and middle school curricula, as well as
contrasting views of subject matter professionalism persist in local schools, imply
some detrimental effects for citizenship education. The findings of this paper should
prompt both policymakers and practitioners to rethink the current practices of
subject matter and citizenship education.
First, my findings suggest that we must rethink the underlying assumptions of
social studies curriculum and teacher preparation. What do Korean policymakers and
curricular specialists mean when they talk about integration? What are the
pedagogical grounds for teaching an integrated social studies curriculum? And what
meanings do they have for teacher preparation? The social studies literature in Korea
has been virtually silent on all of these questions. Despite the increased mainstream
attention to the problem of teacher preparation, this study implies that social studies
teachers’ professional constraints will persist unless the nature of teacher preparation
is tailored to the actual school curricula, unless the curriculum policymakers rethink
the multi-disciplinary structure of middle school social studies curriculum, and
unless teachers are encouraged to find their own ways of connecting subject matter
contents with methods in appropriate manners.
Second, the findings of the study suggest that the mainstream understanding of
teacher professionalism has to be substantially reshaped so as to make it centre not
only on the teachers’ own professional growth, but also on the utmost goal of
citizenship education—encouraging youngsters to acquire basic knowledge and
skills necessary in becoming reflective thinkers.
The message here is simple but powerful: the quality of social studies instruction
and teacher professionalism needs to be enhanced if social studies is to be an
effective vehicle for citizenship education. Schools need to recognize that
pedagogical goals and tasks consistent with the aims of citizenship education need to
be at the core of teachers’ daily work. This will involve changes in the
administration of social studies and an alignment between social studies teacher
education and social studies curricula. When teachers are able to teach in the areas
for which they have been trained, there will be more space for innovative teaching
and more time to consider how the goals of citizenship education can be
incorporated into the social studies curriculum.
There is an observed gap between what social studies teachers believe to be fully
professional and what policymakers choose to happen in the workplace. Schools
need to provide teachers with an appropriate work environment in which their
pedagogical content knowledge and skills can be developed. These knowledge and
skills need to be recognized as part of the core criteria for judging the professional
quality of individual teachers. In addition, the school’s work environment must be
conducive to identifying differences in subject matter teachers’ viewpoints and their
instructional styles, and to enabling debate and discussion about ways to achieve the
goals of citizenship education. In such a professional environment, individual
teachers’ professional perceptions and beliefs can be challenged and negotiated, so
The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 33

as to develop agreed-upon definitions of teacher professionalism contributing to the

aims of citizenship education.
These suggested changes are both structural and professional in nature and their
importance has been highlighted by the voices of teachers themselves. These voices
provide a heuristic lens through which to refocus the nature and practice of social
studies education in a very particular social context. Hopefully, such a refocusing
can contribute to the construction of a more reflective pedagogical discourse that
will enhance citizenship education in Korean middle schools.

Correspondence: DAEHOON JHO, Department of Social Studies Education,

College of Teacher Education, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul, South Korea.
Email: tcjjang@sungshin.ac.kr

NOTES

[1] This work was supported by the Sungshin Women's University Research Grant of 2006.
[2] In this study ‘I’ am on one hand a native investigator who is looking at my own native social
settings in which I have been raised and educated. On the other hand, acknowledging the ideas and
concepts flowing out of the lively discussions in the Western educational scholarships, ‘I’ am a
post-colonial ethnographer who comprehends the significance of contextually-relevant use of
theories.
[3] My on-going research concerns teachers’ professional perceptions and activities regarding
politically constrained, marginalized curricular themes in the mainstream social studies
curriculum, such as the teaching of North Korea, and gay and lesbian issues. As participating in
this larger study, these teachers and I have developed good rapport, and have begun to experience
“educational criticism and connoisseurship” (Eisner, 1991) on the “ideologically incorrect” issues.
A brief profile of four major informants is illustrated in Table 1 (Note: all teachers’ names are
pseudonyms):

# of Years
Name School Subject University major
In Teaching
Ms. Cho Social studies 1 & 3 General Social Studies Ed. 15 years
Mr. Kim Social studies 1 & 2 General Social Studies Ed. 9 years
Ms. Lee History & Social Studies 2 General Social Studies Ed. 7 years
Ms. Park History & Social studies 3 General Social Studies Ed. 3 years

[4] In this paper I subscribe to the McCune-Reischauer system of romanization of Korean words
universities. In the case of any Korean author’s name, however, I use their preferred romanization
for the reference.
34 JHO, D

[5] In 1969, by replacing autonomous entrance examinations in individual middle schools within
centrally administered national entrance testing, the Munkyobu, the then-current Ministry of
Education, monopolized the authority to allocate students to the local middle schools. This state
monopoly of student recruitment first reached the high school level in 1974, and as of 2000 all
middle and academic high schools in Korea’s major cities were subject to this equalization policy
(Kyoyukbu, 1998). As things now stand, however, totally contrary to the policymakers’
expectations, hakwon businesses--after-school private institution and tutoring--have been thriving
than ever before. Under this state policy, it is notable that the prestige of an individual secondary
school has been determined not by the school characteristics, but almost entirely by the degree of
socioeconomic affluence of the school community. Indeed, a new cultural term has come on the
scene: pal hakgun (the 8th school zone). This refers to that school district surrounded by the most
affluent school communities which produces the largest entry group to gain entry into the top-
notch universities.
[6] The literature on the development of social studies subject matter in this period is really scanty.
Lee (1992) conducted an in-depth historical analysis of the birth of social studies subject matter in
Post-Liberation Korea, looking specifically at how certain definitions of social studies came to be
legitimated by various domestic and foreign forces with their differing perspectives. There still
remains much to be answered with respect to the construction of social studies during this
political era.
[7] The major of General Social Studies Education indicates the subject matter education specified for
the teaching of the combined area of politics, economics, law, and sociology and anthropology.
[8] The social studies curriculum has assumed multi-disciplinary unit structure consisting of history,
geography, politics, economics, law, sociology, and anthropology under the name of civic
education, its ultimate goal being to instill in Korea’s young people the values of democratic
citizenship. For instance, the national Social Studies 1 textbook for the middle school 1st grade,
equivalent to the 7th grade in the United States, contains various units relevant to Korean
geography and world geography; the national Social Studies 3 textbook the middle school 3rd
grade is comprised of various discrete units from sociology, anthropology, politics, law,
economics, and contemporary Korean history.
[9] For example, the basic framework of the 7th and latest national curriculum revision has proven
itself to be another version of a discrete multi-disciplinary curriculum, lacking any substantial
evidence of integration. Under this circumstance, there has been a growing voice of calling for the
“disintegration” of current triad of history, geography and general social studies, so that each of
three content areas can be taught by separate textbooks at the middle school level.
[10] At the core of these new teacher education policies is a drive to increase the number of minimum
course credits prospective teachers must take in their non-major departments. Those who have
been certified as common social studies majors will be the first assigned to local middle schools.
For in-service teacher education, local social studies teachers have been required to take a certain
number of content and method courses in their non-major subject areas using their summer and
winter recess periods.
[11] In general, beginning teachers interviewed in this study seemed doubtful as to the effectiveness of
the current policy of CSS. They were doubtful that current pre-service and in-service teacher
education programs would help middle school social studies teachers feel competent about
teaching across multiple disciplinary areas. They did not buy the policymaker’s faith that social
studies teachers can be equally knowledgeable and proficient in each of three concentration areas.
As one teacher aptly put, the current administration of social studies subject matter in middle
schools is analogous to an unlikely situation that every cardiology major is mandated to become a
specialist in both dermatology and orthopedics.
[12] For clarification, it should be noted that Korean teachers normally do not have private places in
their workplace. In middle schools, for example, there are 4~5 faculty offices. But the majority of
faculty members work in kyomusil, the main faculty office. It is a typically observed scene in
almost all of kyomusils in Korean middle schools that teachers’ desks create platoon-like
formations by administrative department. This spatial arrangement, believed to be one of the
vestiges of Japanese colonial schooling, symbolizes both a formal hierarchy and the efficient
division of administrative tasks, called ŏpmu punjang.
The Making of Social Studies Education in Korea 35

REFERENCES

BOGDAN, R. C. and BIKLEN, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory
and Methods. Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon.
CHUNG, I. and ARMER, M. (1994). State, class, and expansion of education in South Korea: A general
model. Comparative Education Review, 38, 4, 531-545.
COGAN, J. J., MORRIS, P. and PRINT, M. (2002). Civic Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Case Studies
across Six Societies. New York, RoutledgeFalmer.
CUMINGS, B. (1997). Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History. New York, W. W. Norton.
DENZIN, N. K. and LINCOLN, Y. S. (eds.) (1998). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and
Issues-Vol. 1. Thousands Oaks, CA, Sage.
DEUCHLER, M. (1992). The Confucian Transformation of Korea. Cambridge, MA, Council on East Asian
Studies, Harvard University Press.
ECKERT, C., LEE, K., LEW, Y. I., ROBINSON, M. and WAGNER, E. W. (1990). Korea Old and New: A
History. Seoul, Korea, Ilchokak Publishers (for the Korean Institute, Harvard University).
EISNER, W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational
Practice, New York, Macmillan.
FLINDERS, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4,
17-29.
FLINDERS, D. J. (1989). Voices from the Classroom: Educational Practice Can Inform Policy. Eugene,
Oregon, ERIC Clearing house on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
INGERSOLL, R. M. (1994). Organizational Control in Secondary Schools. Harvard Educational Review,
64, 2, 150-172.
JENNESS, D. (1990). Making Sense of Social Studies. New York, MacMillan.
JHO, D. (2001). The Making of Teachers’ Work: Social Studies Teacher Gatekeeping in the Institutional
Contexts of Korean Middle Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College,
Columbia University.
KLIEBARD, H. (1995). The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1893-1958 (2nd Ed.). New York,
Routledge.
KYOYUKBU (1992). Kyoyuk 50 Nyŏn Sa: 1948-1998 (50-year history of education). Seoul, Korea,
Kyoyukbu, http://www.moe.go.kr/state/history50/history50.html.
KYOYUKBU (1998) Sahoekwa Kyoyukhwajŏng (7th National Social studies curriculum). Seoul: Taehan
Kyohwasŏjusikhoesa.
KYOYUKBU (2000). Kyoyukbu Kosi Che 2000-1 ho, Kyowon Chagyŏk Kŏmjŏngnyŏng Che 13 ho,
“P’yosi Kwamok Taehak ŭ iKkwanryŏnhakbu (Chŏn’gong-Hakgwa) Mit Kibonisukwamok
Ddonŭn Punya (The policy No. 2000-1: Item No. 13, Teacher Certification Endorsement Law).
LECOMPTE, M. D. and PREISSLE, J. (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research
(2nd Ed.). San Diego, CA, Academic Press.
LEE, H. (1996). Han’guk Junghakkyo Sahoekwa Kyosil Suŏp E Daehan Ilsangsaenghwal kisuljŏk
saryeyŏngu (An ethnographic case study on social studies instruction in a Korean middle school).
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University.
LEE, J. (1992). Haebang Hu Han’guk Sahoekwa ŭi Sŏngrip Kwajŏng gwa Kŭ Sŏng’ggyŏk eh Kwanhan
Yŏngu (A study on the establishment, Characteristics of the social studies in Koran after the 1945
liberation). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University.
LESKO, N. (1988). Symbolizing Society: Stories, Rites, and Structure in a Catholic High School. New
York, Philadelphia, London, Falmer Press.
LITTLE, J. W. (1990). The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers’ Professional
Relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 4, 509-536.
LORTIE, D. C. (1975). The Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
MCGINN, N. F., SNODGRASS, D. R., KIM, Y. B., KIM, S. AND KIM, Y. (1980). Education and Development in
Korea-Studies in the Modernization of the Republic of Korea: 1945-1975. Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press.
MCNEIL, L. (1986). Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowledge. New York and
London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
MEYER, J. W. AND ROWAN, B. (1983). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony. In Meyer, J. W. and Scott, W. R. (eds.) Organizational Environments: Ritual and
Rationality, Beverley Hills, CA, Sage, pp.21-44.
PAGE, R. N. AND VALLI, L. (1990). Curriculum Differentiation: Interpretive Studies in U. S. Secondary
schools. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.
36 JHO, D

ROBINSON, M. (1991). Perceptions of Confucianization in Twentieth-century Korea. In Rozman, G..

(ed.), The East Asian region: Confucian heritage and its modern adaptation, 84-110. Princeton, NJ,
Princeton University Press.
ROHLEN, T. P. (1983). Japan’s High Schools. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, University of California
Press.
SHULMAN, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 1-22.
SISKIN, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 2, 134-160.
SISKIN, L. S. (1994). Realms of Knowledge: Academic Departments in Secondary Schools. Washington,
DC and London, Falmer Press.
STEINER-KHAMSI, G.., TORNEY-PURTA, J. AND SCHWILLE, J. (2002). New Paradigms and Recurring
Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: An International Comparison. Oxford, Elsevier Science
Ltd.
STODOLSKY, S. S. (1988). The Subject Matters: Classroom Activity in Math and Social Studies. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
TORNEY-PURTA, J. LEHMANN, R., OSWALD, H. AND SCHULZ, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in
Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam, IEA.
THORNTON, S. J. (2005). Teaching Social Studies that Matters: Curriculum for Active Learning. New
York, Teachers College Press.
YOO, B. (1992). Han’guk Kyoyuk’wajŏngsa Yŏngu (Research on the history of curriculum in Korea).
Seoul, Kyohak Yŏn’gusa.